quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:

quote:

I do have to say that the obvious intelligence of this statement you made astounds me; "I can push a 22 cal bullet faster easier than I can a 458 bullet all other being equal." I'm sure most here too can push a .22 cal centerfire faster than any .458 caliber centerfire. Even the .22 Hornet is faster than most any .458 centerfire. Your ability to do the obvious is just plumb amazing.

HOW FUCKING IGNORANT ARE YOU, never mind I know the answer.
You/we are talking about RPM's-hence faster, easier- ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL!!!! now tell me I'm wrong, idiot. For love of Jesus first year casters can tell you if you take a 22 cal bullet and a 45 cal bullet, both cast of same alloy, same hardness the 22 cal bullet will take almost twice the pressure as the 45 cal bullet before alloy failure. You can't read can you, 45 right.

quote:

... you can't take the same bullet and shoot accurate at low rpm then make it shoot just as accurately up through the rpm range.

quote:

There will be some that learn and move ahead. And these will make your efforts worth while. Sadly, there will be those that won't and they will be
RPMists (and democrats) for life."

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Starmetal

"Larry you can't take the same bullet and shoot accurate at low rpm then make it shoot just as accurately up through the rpm range. You understand that right? Seems that is what you've tried to do. Fit, lube, and alloy have to be different going up the rpm scale. Throw powder in there also. Grant you one alloy and size goes quite a ways."

Did you lie to me? You told me you had followed the RPM threshold test results over on the Cast Bullet Forum. If you had you'd no that I not only change and tested all the things you mentioned but a lot of others and all to a much greater degree than you mention. There was; 3 different 5 different rifles, 3 different bullets, 3 different alloys, 3 different GCs, 5 different lubes including the vaunted LBT Blue, 1 medium and 4 slow burning powders, 5 different sizing of the bullet, and 6 different primers along with a few things I can't think of off the top of my head. The results were all the same; go above the RPM threshold and accuracy deteriorates. Sometimes by not much but none the less accuracy deteriorates and the group dispersion goes non-linear.

"Is your and Bass's test conclusive? No, because myself and others have pushed many of the bullets you listed to high rpm with accurately in the various twist you listed. Don't forget what I told you about my beginning of rifle cast bullets....that I never started with pistol powders and low velocities. I more or less substituted cast bullet for jackets loads. It took lots of learning and shooting to get there, but I've done and so have others that know the technique. You think that you do, but you don't."

Again you don't listen and you don't understand. It is not about "good accuracy" at high RPM. It is about where the best accuracy will be with consistency and with a linear dispersion of groups.

"I talk to Bass on the phone regularly and he didn't have one good thing to say about the bullet he tested for you. He said this to me in a recent email: There will be some that learn and move ahead. And these will make your efforts worth while. Sadly, there will be those that won't and they will be
RPMists (and democrats) for life."

That's nice, I talked to him too, several times actually. No he didn't say much about it. He was embarassed because he couldn't do with it what he said he could. He couldn't "throw dirt in my face" to quote Tiger. He filally cam on the CBF and said he'd done well with it up through 2300 fps (2-3 moa). He didn't tell everyone on the CBF that he got best accuracy down in the RPM threshold. He also doesn't tell eveyone that is where "best accuracy" is also with his 154 gr LBT bullet. He sent me quite a few to test. He knows I know. He claims if he stands in the right spot on an 80+ degree day and takes all day to shoot three rounds he can put 3 of them inot 1 maybe 2 MOA. Yup, that's real consistent. Actually he had nothing to pis an moan about. He did well with that bullet any way.

And you know what? I've a GB311291 that drops bullet at .314 on the bands and .303 on the nose. They fit really well as the nose is engraved all by rifling from the ogive back. I've tried them in my '06s with all the tricks of the trade. They didn't do any better than that crappy, ill-fitting, out of wack Lyman 311291 that Bass is pissing and moaning about. The best accuracy with those well fitting bullets is exactly 30 fps higher in the RPM threshold. At the same 2300+ fps they shoot the same 2-3 moa as the Lyman ill-fitting bullet. Now isn't that just special!

Larry Gibson

quote:

You are quoting things that have nothing at all to do with my statement. If all things are equal then the twists are the same(SO NOW WHY THE BULLSHIT ABOUT TWISTS IN BARRELS), alloys are same and the cartridges can be imaginary( a 50 bmg necked down to 45 if you want) it is going to be easier to get the 22 bullet up to your threshold than it is a 45 cal bullet because the alloy will fail sooner on the 45 bullet.

quote:

Starmetal

"Larry you can't take the same bullet and shoot accurate at low rpm then make it shoot just as accurately up through the rpm range. You understand that right? Seems that is what you've tried to do. Fit, lube, and alloy have to be different going up the rpm scale. Throw powder in there also. Grant you one alloy and size goes quite a ways

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:

quote:

... you can't take the same bullet and shoot accurate at low rpm then make it shoot just as accurately up through the rpm range.

Please explain?

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

Beginning to think 45 2.1 is right when you pick and choose what part of the posts to reply to. THIRD time, what about Lyman emailing me and saying the definitely test and shoot all the loads in their books. You just don't want to face the facts that some of the loads are high rpm and out of your threshold? Don't say they aren't accurate, I firmly believe Lyman wouldn't list useless loads.

quote:

11800 fps range.

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:

quote:

11800 fps range.

Boy you got a vivid imagination, pretty mouth too.

quote:

Yes you did say they didn't test shoot every load. I knew you would renig.

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:
Larry I missed that. Yes you did say they didn't test shoot every load. I knew you would renig. It doesn't matter what distance Lyman test their loads at. They sure as hell know that they will be shot at various ranges. I think that they get feedback, don't you, and if some of their loads are terrible they would fix them or delete them. So now we have to have accuracy at a specific distance???

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Joe; et all, I'm thinking we could all chip in and get Larry a book on ballistics, maybe a beginers guide to casting too, what say ye? I could let him borrow my PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF LOADING AMMUNITION by Earl Naramore 1954, but that could be a little over his head for now, better hold off. What do you say Larry, any requests.

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:

quote:

Yes you did say they didn't test shoot every load. I knew you would renig.

Joe; I very vividly remember Larry saying Lyman didn't test every load. Maybe all this spin confusion is just CRS or the start of something worse.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Starmetal

I've no more time to waste on your continual BS. You want to call me a liar then fine. Anyone who reads this thread can read what I said, what Lyman said and what the truth is. I don't think anyone but 45 2.1, swheeler and you are going to believe I said that Lyman doesn't "test" their loads considering all of the test data that has been in their manuals for years. Not everyone is as stupid as the 3 of you seem to think.

You can shoot "consistent" groups with 2 rifles. So what! I can shoot "consistent" groups with that 311291 you 3 piss and moan about so much also. What does that prove? Nothing is what. That bullet still has it's best accuracy down in the RPM threshold, just like all others including yours if you'd bother to find out.

You still don't understand. You still don't want to understand. We have been over this so many times. Go read the definition of the RPM threshold and understand it because right now you and the other 2 don't. Come up with some facts instead of BS statements. Show me a methodical test you've completed other than one or two groups you say are 'good" or "consistant". Thest them at 50 100 and 200 yards and see if they are linear or non linear. Actually chronograph them so you actually know the velocity. Do something other than just give BS statements.

There is a saying and it goes; "Conservatives attack policies, liberals attack people." In the case of you 3 you can't come up with factual data so you do the personal attack thing. The point is; if I actually did lie about what Lyman tests what does that have to do with the facts of the RPM threshold? It has absolutely nothing to do with it. You can't present facts so you make a very sorry attempt to discredit me as a liar. Sorry but it is obvious who is lying.

Unfortunely I let myself fall into that name calling crap last night. Not going to again. My apologies to all three of you for that.

Come back when you can discuss this in a polite manner with facts from actual tests. I have proffered facts based on considerable testing, collecting data and actual "targeting". You just come up with opinions based on assumptions. That i have to admit is at least one step ahead of swheeler who just imagines things. However, neither is fact nor is the data real.

I'll still accept your apology.

Larry Gibson

quote:

it's called "anal rectalitis", he's got it and he's spewing from both ends now.

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

The people cast see the consistent crap post you put here too Larry.

By the way I shoot consistent groups with far more then two rifles. Those two stand out for high rpm and small groups.

I've been lying to you Larry. I have a rpm threshold too. It's alittle broader they yours though. Mine is from 5000 rpm to 400,000 rpm.

Okay since you're done you stick with your rpm threshold, we'll stick with our system. Call it we agree to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Spin 5150 You were in the spell check police force?
Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook 3rd ed.
"Testing of these bullets occurred, primarily, in match grade rifles chambered for the .30/06 and .308 Winchester. Later, additional work was done in a .300 Winchester Magnum indicating these bullets were accurate up to 3,000 f.p.s."
Page #114
ENOUGH SAID

quote:

Originally posted by 303Guy:
OK then, I hearby declare the truce official!

An interesting statement was made that the larger bores can shoot cast bullets faster or at least as fast as smaller bores. I must say I had the impression that smaller bores with slower twist were faster.

Now, before I get linched, this is just my speculation.
Please correct me or add comments and speculations of your own.

I thought the smaller bores were faster due to less rotational accelleration force coupled with less obturational force due simply to the fact that a smaller bullet is shorter and has less mass. On the other hand, larger bore rifles made for cast bullets have slower twist rates but those would still be shooting shorter bullets. When getting to 30cal rifles with 1-in-10 twists, made for longer bullets one has a problem getting the bullet to fit the throat so longer bullets are necessary. So, such a cast bullet is going to be long which is going to result in high obturation forces if the pressure gets too high. Then, because these are fairly large cases, slower powders are going to give a fairly high muzzle pressure. This is were I am seeing a problem. That long bullet is going to be subject to high pressure on its base while it exits the muzzle, meaning that it is laterally unsupported and can deform, either by swelling laterally or bending/buckling. This would be independant of spin rate although the higher the spin, the greater the tendency for swelling. Now I do know for a fact that my long bullets bend real easy. They bend when I impress the hollow point if they are not in the die properly.

I am hoping to get good accuracy from my 303 Brit with 220 to 245gr bullets at 1900fps or more. This does not mean a light load. The standard load for the Brit with 215gr bullets is 2200fps at around 43,000CUP. So far, I have had a high percentage of flyers. Then I discovered the barrel channel was just about touching the barrel and would actually touch if the fore-end was squeezed a little. I am pretty much giving up on using that particular rifle (the No.4) as I have a better bore, five groove specimen with longer barrel and a longer necked chamber. Its disadvantage is the chamfer on the chamber/throat. It is sharper so might be more likely to scrape the bullet or surface lube. On the other hand, if I know I am facing dirt and lube problems I can make allowences for it (by not dragging that rifle through the bush and mud). Still, If I can get the No.4 to shoot casts, it would be great in the bush. But that is a hunting rifle anyway so shouldn't need cheaper, cast bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by swheeler:
Spin 5150 You were in the spell check police force?
Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook 3rd ed.
"Testing of these bullets occurred, primarily, in match grade rifles chambered for the .30/06 and .308 Winchester. Later, additional work was done in a .300 Winchester Magnum indicating these bullets were accurate up to 3,000 f.p.s."
Page #114
ENOUGH SAID

Apparently you were in the "spell check police force. I was just pointing out the obsurdity of your previous post regards "11800" and the rediculas statement you made. Apparently you can't stand the heat when it's directed at you.

Your Lyman quote is totally out of context with the discussion Starmetal and I were having. The quote you gave is in reference to the PP'd bullets tested by E.H. Harrison as reported in the NRA Cast bullet handbook. The data testing Starmetal and I were discussing is that from the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook regarding regular cast bullet loads as lited by Lyman.

Why didn't you quote the preceding paragraph? Obviosly because it discredits the lame point you're trying to make. So let's put your quote into context and quote the prededing paragraph from Lymans 3rd edition Cast Bullet handbook;

" He (they are refering to COL Harrison) performed a great many experiments, recording them in the American Rifleman, and his works resulted in #301618 and #301620; both of which are covered in this hand book."

So you see you are quoting something non-relevant to the discussion, as usual. You should pay attention to one particular word in your quote. That word is "indicating". Those loads only "indicated" accuracy. The manual does not say they were in fact accurate. Probably because they did not "target" them as Lyman also says in their manual. (the quote I gave)

However, I shall ask you the same as I asked starmetal. Kindly give us your definition of the RPM threshold so we may see where you are coming from?

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by starmetal:

Oh boy, you opened a can of worms. Shit, I hope this doesn't bring Larry back. Kind of nice with him gone. Wish he'd stay over at Castboolits. Bending...wow, major can of worms. First let me ask why wouldn't paper patched bullets bend under the same conditions and alloy? Larry don't give me that NRA theory, which you yourself aren't sold on....... /QUOTE]

Starmetal

Again you are having trouble comprehending or haven't put your glasses on. I already answered that question right after I gave the NRAs theory on it. Look it up yourself. I'm tired of refinding things for you.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

Not buying it, not in the barrel long enough to get heated that hot. Also barrel is cooler near the muzzle. Still lots of bullet core left that wasn't heated to the degree that they claim the surface was.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

Not buying it, not in the barrel long enough to get heated that hot. Also barrel is cooler near the muzzle. Still lots of bullet core left that wasn't heated to the degree that they claim the surface was.

Starmetal

Please do not act the dumb ass here. I asked you to look it up. Obviously you didn't and went off your poor memory again. Or you are just pitching another red herring because you've no idea what the definition of the RPM threshold is.

After I quoted the NRA I said;

"It is also believed (evidenced by recovered bullets) that the PP supports the cast bullet almost it's entire length preventing unwanted obturation during acceleration."

I further said in another post;

"I didn't say I bought off on the NRA's answer either, I only quoted it. I did that because as happened on the other forum when I didn't I was "challenged" by you know who. I added my comments which is what I believe to be the reason patched cast bullets can be driven faster with accuracy."

I said nothing about me thinking or agreeing with what the NRA said on this issue. You are barking up the wrong tree again.

Can we have your definition of the RPM threshold as it applies to this discussion?

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:

There's too many regular cast bullets that have been paper patched to shoot excellent to support some of the NRA's theory.

One thing I feel is needed is that the rpm doesn't exceed the strength of alloy, but we both know this. That can be looked at many different ways too. Actually I don't shoot for rpm limit or area, I shoot what velocity I want the bullet to be at. If that requires a high rpm then so be it, I'll deal with it. Take Dan's contest once again. I deliberately chose a rifle with the fastest twist to try the test. The 7mm-08 fulfilled this. I could push the bullet to the speed needed which didn't exceed the capability of the rifle, cartridge, or shooter. I would have really had a very hot load to this in say the 30-06. Mainly because most all my bullets for 30 caliber are heavy. It's hard to push a heavy cast bullet (210-220 gr) that fast in the 06. I didn't have any lighter 30 caliber bullets that were suitable. I didn't have a mould for a good 22 caliber bullet to try my Colt HBAR. My other 22 centerfires were of a too slow of a twist.